The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the minor claimants against the respondents (truck driver, owner, insurer, and relatives) for want of prosecution, as the appellants were not represented in the court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1361 of 2016
Appellant No. 2 to 7 are minors through Natural Guardian Appellant No.1 Mother, all R/o Barela, P.S. And Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..................(Claimants)
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondents
For appellants : None. For Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 : none though represented. None for R-4 though served as per office note dated 13-12-2016.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
Order On Board
20-12-2016
As the appellants are not represented when the case was taken up even in second round, this court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
The MAC is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge
Pathak
Sulochana @ Silochani Chandravanshi and others
Vishram Prasad and others
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
